SRI SHIV CHARAN LAL vs Ghaziabad Development Authority

ORDER

COMPLAINANT Shiv Charan Lal in his complaint has approached for setting aside or cancelling the allotted flat and directing the opposite party not to levy any penal interest or in alternative refund the entire amount of Rs. 1,02,500/- alongwith 18% interest and cost. Facts of the case, stated in brief, are that the complainant deposited an amount of Rs. 25,025/- on 29 February, 1988 in application form No. 7045 for allotment of a flat. A sum of Rs. 25,000/- was to be paid in a month''s time of reservation and the rest amount was to be paid in four half yearly instalments. The allotment order was issued in favour of the complainant on 21st July, 1989 after a number of personal visits and harassment. The flat in question was allotted to the complainant after cancelling the same, according to the complainant. Due to some fraud committed by the Computer Cell, this flat was allotted to some other person. Vide letter dated 21st July, 1989 opposite party had stated that the payment schedule is enclosed, but no schedule was attached with the reservation letter mentioned above. The bank refused to accept the allotment money payable in four instalments in absence of payment schedule. It only accepted the first instalment which was payable within one month of the reservation amount. The payment schedule was not intentionally attached with the reservation letter for reasons known to the department.

Vide letter dated 29th October, 1992 a sum of Rs. 3,04,882/- was demanded by the opposite party including a sum of Rs. 1,04,287/- as penal interest. This amount was to be paid by 30.11.1992. The demand of penal interest is illegal as there was no delay on the part of the complainant because the payment schedule was not supplied to him. Thus the complainant has prayed for allotment of the same flat or in alternative for refund of the amount.

THE defence of the opposite party through written statement is that it is incorrect to say that inadvertently the reservation letter was issued to some other person. As soon as the fault was detected by the Computer Cell, the reservation letter was issued to the complainant. THE payment schedule is sent with every reservation letter and the same was sent to the complainant also. It is further alleged that a sum of Rs. 96,250/- was returned to the complainant by means of cheque dated 17th December, 1993. THE complainant has filed frivolous and vexatious complaint. The party''s Counsel gave evidence in support of their contention. Learned Counsel for complainant Mr. R.K. Gupta and learned Counsel for the opposite party Mr. Ram Raj had been attending.

IT is an admitted fact that the plot in question was allotted to the complainant and the registration amount alongwith an amount of Rs. 25,000/- was deposited by the complainant with the opposite party. This was, however, self financing scheme. IT is also-an admitted fact that the payment was to be made in quarterly instalments. IT is an admitted fact that due to Computer Cell''s mistake the reservation letter was wrongly sent to some other person and not to the complainant. The only controversy which remains to be decided in this case is whether alongwith reservation letter schedule of payment was also sent to the complainant or not. In para 2 of the affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party, the payment schedule was sent to the complainant and the complainant was required to make the deposit it accodance with the schedule. The opposite party had in fact sent reservation letter to some other person on account of the fault of the Computer Cell and thereafter, according to the opposite party, the schedule of payment was sent to the complainant alongwith reservation letter. It may be noted that the complainant had deposited registration amount as well as the first instalment after the reservation amount within the time fixed. It becomes difficult to believe the version of the opposite party that the schedule of payment was sent to the complainant in the face of several correspondence addressed by the complainant to the opposite party.

IT may be mentioned that by letter dated 30th July, 1991 the opposite party by means of allotment-cum-Possession letter intimated that already demanded amount plus lease rent plus L.S. amount may be paid before possession. Prior to this by reservation letter dated 21st July, 1989 the estimated cost etc. was intimated to the complainant and in the enclosure it was mentioned that the payment schedule is attached. After receipt of this letter, the complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as registration amount on 7.8.1989 vide receipt filed. Thereafter vide letter dated 26th September, 1989 the opposite party intimated to the complainant that upto date payments may be made by 20.10.1989. In reply to these letters, the complainant vide his letter dated 29th September, 1989 intimated to the opposite party that he could not deposit the first instalment as the schedule of payment has not been supplied to him. Reference of notice dated 26th September, 1989 was also given. He specifically mentioned that the date for payment be changed and payment schedule be sent to him immediately. Thereafter by letter dated 20th October, 1989 opposite party was asked to send the payment schedule so that the instalments may be paid. None of these letters were replied to and payment schedule was not sent. By letter dated 22.12.1989 the opposite party again requested the complainant to make the entire payment upto 30th January, 1991. In reply to this letter the complainant again demanded the payment schedule and made reference to his earlier letters and also stated in it that inspite of these letters, he has not heard anything from that office. Thereafter, the complainant again wrote another letter dated 24th March, 1992 demanding the payment schedule and stating therein that the Bank has refused to accept these instalments in absence of schedule to payment. Copies of earlier letters were also enclosed alongwith this letter. Similarly another letter was written by the complainant on 15th June, 1992 mentioning therein that without sending revised payment schedule, penalty is being imposed on the complainant. He again demanded schedule of payment for the balance amount to be made.

THEREAFTER similar letter was written on 27th June, 1992 by the complainant but these letters were not replied. On 29th October, 1992 opposite party sent a letter to the complainant intimating that the entire amount of Rs. 3,04,882/- alongwith interest be deposited by 30.11.1992 and thereafter possession be taken. When all these letters remained unreplied and no schedule of payment was supplied to the complainant by the opposite party, the present complaint was filed. Thus the above mentioned correspondence clearly goes to show that the complainant tried his level best to obtain the schedule of payment from the opposite party but the opposite party adopted a careless and callous attitude in not replying to any of his letters and also did not supply him payment schedule. The complainant was asked by the opposite party to pay the entire amount by a certain date as stated by the opposite party. It is difficult for a person to arrange for huge amount to meet the cost of the house in one lumpsum and in order to facilitate the payment, scheme of instalment is introduced by the Development Authority so that during this period the instalments are paid and the construction goes on utilising the amount of the allottees. Thus on the basis of the entire evidence, the contention of the opposite party that no schedule of payment was supplied to him can be safely relied upon. Thus the opposite party has committed deficiency in service. The complainant is entitled for the relief claimed. The complaint is therefore, liable to be allowed. ORDER

Complaint is allowed and the opposite party is directed to pay interest at the rate of 18% p.a. as damage on a sum of Rs. 96,250/- from the date of deposit till 17.12.1993. Opposite party will also pay a sum of Rs. 6,250/- to complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 18% p.a. as damages from 18.12.1993 till payment. Complainant will also pay damages on account of harassment and a sum of Rs. 2,000 / - as cost.

COMPLIANCE of this order shall be done within a period of 2 months from the date of judgment. Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules. Complaint allowed with costs.